Tag Archives: best book blog

The Adversary

When I was wide awake and alert, reading Michael Crummey’s The Adversary was a total joy. Fantastic descriptions, layered scenes where every action and reaction has triple meaning, beautiful language. Too often though I was reading it just before bed and my half-awake brain didn’t have enough focus to attend to the layers and I’d find myself having ‘read’ three pages and not remembering at all what had happened or to whom and so re-reading it again the following night (to much the same effect).

Which is to say – this is a great book that you should read when conditions allow you to slowly and carefully appreciate it.

When I did have those occasions what I enjoyed most was the tension between individual characters and the Fates (classic man versus nature / man versus god conflict structures) whether that was plague, or storm, or ice. The resignation of the individual characters to accepting these bigger-than-self constraints stands against the quotidian conflicts on their daily lives, eruptions of brutal violence, and, as the title suggests, the structuring conflict between the Widow and her brother Abe. While the Widow is hardly an easily sympathetic character, I nevertheless found myself frustrated for her – that so much of what she attempts to do is constrained by gender – but in the end I suppose it’s her hubris rather than her gender that gets in the way. And the birds.

Enjoyed, too, the references to the orphans of The Innocents a fantastic companion piece to this historical drama. So take both with you on vacation this summer and give in to the unique pleasure of reading about 19th century Newfoundland – which I get it, does not sound like it’s going to be gripping. But it is! Unless you’re very tired. I don’t know anyone tired these days. All of us: sharp, alert, ready to read.

Leave a comment

Filed under Canadian Literature, Fiction, Historical Fiction

Tom Lake: A book to bury your nights

Ann Patchett’s Tom Lake sucked me up and spat me out a few days later. The sort of book you don’t notice you’re reading until hours later and you have turned prune in the tub or the clock is – traitorously – telling you its well past your very last possible bedtime. Which is strange because it’s not a book that’s “about” very much. Which is to say it isn’t very plot-y. It is instead a book about how we become, how events that once shook us fade into memories we can only loosely sketch the contours of later.

On its surface the story is that of Lara and how she was briefly an actor, briefly going to be a very famous actor, briefly the lover of an eventually very famous actor Peter Duke, briefly someone else. A story she is parcelling out for her adult daughters as they work the days of pandemic lockdowns on their (albeit occasionally-overly-pastoral-and-idealized even though it is supposed to be pastoral and idealized) family farm.

There’s a beautiful scene where Lara is explaining to her daughters why she doesn’t regret or question the decision (though it wasn’t really her decision and on every occasion where she’s offered the chance she still chooses Peter?) to leave Peter and be with their father, plainer-than-steady-reliable Joe. She explains it something like Peter is a carnival ride – wild, epic entertainment, but always going to leave you feeling sick and disoriented and so you’re relieved to get away. It’s mostly persuasive. The reader doesn’t question that Lara now – Lara of three grown children and an established farm – doubts anything about Joe. Their relationship reads as perfectly solid and deep (and probably overly pastoral and idealized). And still it’s surprising that this wild ride of Peter Duke can be so thoroughly – seemingly – parcelled as fond memory instead of what he is – a symbol for an alternate life she could have led, another path had only small changes happened or not.

It is, of course, the mirror to the reader – an invitation to cast back across the life to ask where these moments of rupture and decision have been and will be. Deliberate words there – rupture and decision – those moments that change is made for us and those where we (apparently) exercise some direction on what will come next.

So, too, the reader gets to reexamine for themselves the way in which the experience of cataclysmic event – a pandemic – becomes, necessarily, something we remember with distant curiosity: do you remember when we wiped all the cereal boxes with lysol wipes before the came into the house? As if we can forget the terror of uncertainty and interminability that accompanied that particular distorted time for the privileged (me) that experienced it from within my home.

For Lara the remembered story within the lockdown days of the ruptured change of her summer at Tom Lake offers us that promise and threat: it’s all change; none of this will last.

In that theme it is also a book of parenting and death: my favourites. Many scenes of her recollection of her daughters as small children with sticky hands – (let us agree this is an image that has Done Its Time and can be retired, even while yes, many toddlers do have sticky hands) and brutal awareness of their Full Adulthood, the way in which that ‘longest shortest time’ wrenches the parent in the repetition of the call to cherish it, to savour it, to hold on to it – as if we didn’t know, is if we weren’t constantly pressingly impossibly aware of how temporary and tender it is.

And how we will full circle to the graveyard that holds the generations of the family on the farm (but will it if Emily maintains that children shouldn’t be born into a world so fractured? And isn’t she right?) – so sacred in its promise of final redemption that Peter Duke pays untold dollars for the privilege of burial there – and the promise that all of them, all of us, meet there as what can we do but watch on double time the inevitability of the change.

Savour this one then and – certainly, as it was always certain – enjoy the end.

Leave a comment

Filed under American literature, Erin's Favourite Books, Fiction, Prize Winner

Hello Beautiful: What is the word for syrup when it’s spread across the pages of a novel.

Given the extremely limited time I have available for reading given my other commitments to staring absently out the window looking for explanations of How It Has All Come To This and What We Are To Do, I was extremely annoyed by Ann Napolitano’s Hello Beautiful for taking up weeks of my reading time with the faint promise that it might realize itself into something good. It does not.

We follow Julia, Sylvie, Cecelia, and Emeline (lest we maybe miss the parallels to Little Women the book is sure to include direct scenes where the sisters act out or talk about being similar to those characters. Nothing inspires more confidence as a reader that your author trusts you that having the author literally explain the intended parallel) as they try to find love and purpose and family and meaning. Julia – type A extraordinary is only satisfied when she is giving order to someone else’s life and only feels herself come into her true power as a mother (#sure #whynot #ummm) – marries the ‘broken’ William (as with so much in this book any possible opportunity to make a theme literal is seized – so here the emotionally broken William who has absentee parents breaks his… knee. Again and again). But of course her sister, Sylvie, (like the Plath!) is on a quest for True Love (#sure #whynot #ummm) and ends up with William because they are soul mates who can see the brokenness of one another and “hold space” for that with one another. The other sisters do some things, too, and they are all trying to make sense of what it might be like to be adults without parents taking care of them, and to sort out where the bonds of sisterhood reach limits.

But please. It’s so saccharine and pat and convinced that you are not a reader who can be trusted to just understand a theme unless it is painfully explained.

I will not do the same. The thrust of this review is…. _________.

Leave a comment

Filed under Worst Books

Red Rising: Fantasy Mashup and Bestseller Bonanza

I described Pierce Brown’s Red Rising to C. as a cross between Hunger Games, Divergent and Game of Thrones and then as she was reading the back, she pointed out the same description was on the cover. Probably because it’s an apt way of capturing the plot and theme points. And because I’m a book reviewer genius and the Kirkus Review has nothing on me.

Right… so like the Hunger Games in that we’re set in a dystopian society of stratified classes. Instead of Districts we have Colours (like the Divergent factions) each associated with a different professional role in the Society (capital S on purpose). Like HG the young must do battle with one another in an arena (or sorts) though instead of killing one another the quest is to establish dominance over the land (think Game of Thrones battles, strategy and endless betrayals). It’s a battle within a battle (sort of like Enders Game come to think of it) with our hero – Darrow – working to infiltrate the upper echelon of the Society so he can take it down from the inside and free his people.

There’s some pretty silly bits. In the early chapters Darrow’s realization of his captivity and subsequent awareness of the wider world reads as an obnoxiously similar description of Plato’s cave: like there’s an actual cave and actual fire. There’s a lot of searing pain (think Harry Potter and the interminable descriptions of How Much His Scar Hurts) and teenage hormone.

But these silly parts are endurable for the well-paced plot and the genuine interest and care cultivated for Darrow and his quest (cultivated in no small part in that Darrow is a very well developed character with complex and unpredictable reactions – except when it comes to women, more on that in a minute). I liked reading this one so much I couldn’t wait to order it from the other library and (actually) waited outside the bookstore for it to open this morning so I could get the second installment (it is, of course, a trilogy).

*light spoilers to follow*

I liked reading it even while I was troubled and annoyed with the representation of women. Darrow’s wife, Eo, is a singular martyr and Darrow’s romanticization of her throughout the rest of the book put me off as it made Eo’s entire purpose the inspiration and motivation of her husband-man: “They didn’t create me. She did” (115). His later love interest, Mustang, is more developed as a character, but similarly defined in relation to Darrow: she is a traitor, she is loyal, she is helpful, she is destructive all in terms of what she does to or for him.

A related sticking point is the representation of bodies. The women are – without exception – only loveable or worthy of character development if they also happen to be slight and wispy whiffs of a person: “Though she’s swaddled with wolfcloaks as thick as my own, she hardly comes up to my shoulder. And when we walk through deep snow, it’s almost a laugh to see her try to keep apace with me. But if I slow, I earn a scowl. Her braid bounces as she keeps up [for real. her braid bounces]. When we reach easier ground, she glances over at me. Her pert nose is red as a cheery in the cold, but her eyes look like hot honey” (309-310). Okay, this passage probably won’t make you want to run out and get the book (it really is a fun read and worth checking out). I highlight it because it’s an example of the fragility-made-tough that women are meant to have in the book. And the way our ponytails should bounce. Contrast with the male characters who are worthy of veneration for all kinds of body types and shapes.

All that said it really was a romp of a fun read with Allegory and Importance thrown in for some fun. You could easily enjoy on the beach, a plane or wait until – inevitably – the blockbuster movie comes out (unless you’re in book club, in which case you have to read it because we’re reading it).

Leave a comment

Filed under Bestseller, Fiction